#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Why Do We Need Government?
Is there at least one good reason?
| Add New Argument |
|
roads, police, firemen, schools, food that isn't disease ridden, water that isn't disease ridden, military, print money, enforce laws, make laws, determine constitutionality of laws, carry out justice, separate dangerous people from society, cool stuff like space travel, scientific advancements, dispensing scientific advancement connected to health quickly and fairly, help people in case of disaster at home, help people in case of disaster abroad, attempt to ensure things like genocide do not occur... again at least, ensure freedoms such as speech, create cool stuff like the internet that TERMINATOR is using as a medium to complain about government, etc, etc, etc. 1
point
because it is too expensive for individuals to pay for, and without a government with the people's instead of profit's best interest in mind the food industry for example, wouldn't give two shits if say a hundred thousand people died from rotten beef. Side: A majority cannot function independantly
The food industry would care if a hundred thousand customers died from there food because they would have lost at least a hundred thousand consumers and perhaps thousands more from total disgust. The food industry has an interest in making sure their product is good. Side: A majority cannot function independantly
If lack of regulation lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths, which it inevitably would, then the producers of said beef would do nothing to remedy the situation since they frankly would not have to. Further, since now beef would likely have a monopoly since that is the inevitable conclusion of any capitalist system without democratic means of governance, they would have around 300,000,000 customers in the US - making it quite likely that the steps to ensure a hundred thousand people did not die here and there due to bad beef would cost more than the loss of a hundred thousand lives. So no, they wouldn't care. Side: A majority cannot function independantly
Well in a Republican form of government like the US, a person or entity has the right to do anything that niether "breaks my leg or picks my pocket" as Thomas Jefferson would say. So if the beef corporation did kill a hundred thousands they would be liable in court and would have to pay reparations to the deceased's family. Which also discourages bad or dangerous quality. Side: A majority cannot function independantly
"because it is too expensive for individuals to pay for" LoL. Just how did you come to that conclusion? Ireland held together without a government for well over 1000 years. There are still Irish today, so it looks like they didn't all starve to death! Somalia had no government from 1991-2006 and they saw nothing but growth in this time. You are perfectly wrong on this point. "and without a government with the people's instead of profit's best interest in mind the food industry for example, wouldn't give two shits if say a hundred thousand people died from rotten beef." That's foolish. You assume 3 things 1. government workers care less about profits than non-government workers 2. people will willingly spend years building up a company only to obliterate their own reputations and drive their company into the ground for a few extra bucks by selling rotten beef 3. Beef producers will sell rotten beef to beef distributors for the same reason. Besides that, everyone now knows this person is responsible for the death of 100,000 people. You think He's ever getting a job again? You think people will do nothing about him? Again, you are perfectly wrong. try again. Side: We DON'T
... yeah, and those places sucked when they didn't have a government. Somolia still sucks. Western nations don't suck because we have good governments. And your three points are moronic. Everytime a company doesn't have proper oversite we see problems. You don't even have to imagine, the recent mining deaths, the economy, the housing bubble, the list goes on and on of real life examples of not enough oversite leading to companies not giving two shits about the consumers. The CEO's make a quick profit, and sell off collecting bonuses before the shit hits the fan. Happens all the time. Without government it would happen even more. Side: A majority cannot function independantly
"... yeah, and those places sucked when they didn't have a government. Somolia still sucks. Western nations don't suck because we have good governments." Did you even look at the link? Go back, read it. Somalia "sucks" and has always sucked" but it sucked a hell of a lot less when it had a free market. I'm sure you understand the concept of sucking less without being the best. "And your three points are moronic. Everytime a company doesn't have proper oversite we see problems. You don't even have to imagine, the recent mining deaths, the economy, the housing bubble," you assume the government protects you from those things. the truth is the exact opposite. http://www.youtube.com/ "the list goes on and on of real life examples of not enough oversite leading to companies not giving two shits about the consumers. The CEO's make a quick profit, and sell off collecting bonuses before the shit hits the fan. Happens all the time. Without government it would happen even more." You've clearly never owned a business, or if you have you must have ran it right into the ground. ALL CEO's care about is customers. More customers=more money. If you don't meet consumer demand well enough you fail. It's that simple. But when extortion rackets (i.e. the state) gets involved you see the building of coercive monopolies which allow a business to do fuck all without having to worry about loosing profit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ And if things really go bad, you can always have a bailout! ;) You have at this time only made assertions and have yet to provide ANY argument show how government makes anything better. Side: We DON'T
Oh jeez, you're one of those. 1. Government is innevitable, it is human nature. There is no such thing as anarchy and the closest humans have ever gotten to annarchy is a tribal system. Name one country with a tribal system that doesn't suck. 2. You're lame brick video has 0 to do with this argument (and even if it did there are plenty of good points below it countering the lame video). That you think printing more money is bad does not = all government is bad. That's childish. 3. You're wikipedia coercive monopoly link has 0 to do with this argument (even ignoring that companies bribe government to get monopolies, not the other way around). That you think coercive monopolies are bad does not = all government is bad. That's childish. 4. I could give two shits about your business. Owning a business does not make you magically more knowledgeable, in your case it only seems to lead to tunnel vision, and a weird dislike for the things you depend on that government provides mixed with what frankly seems an annoying aire of entitlement. 5. What on earth do the bank bailouts have to do with anything? Again, it was government helping business, and you seem to be blaming the victim. Honestly, this anti-government bs going around is exactly like Stewie from Family Guy. You spend all your time trying to kill it, but expect it to change your diapers every time you shit yourself. Side: We DON'T
"Oh jeez, you're one of those." lol, either you're a fool or a liar for making such a statement. 1. human nature changes over time (but I'm sure you already knew that). In fact it's been documented, measured and named to the point where one can deduce in an almost mathematical fashion how human nature will change and guess what it ends with ;) Better yet, I'll show you: http://www.psychohistory.com/ you don't know much about history, do you ;) http://mises.org/daily/2014 << anarchic america 2. You're a liar. You yourself brought up economics and the housing bubble. You say you have counter arguments, but list none (shock!). Put up or shut up =) "That you think printing more money is bad does not" If that's what you've deduced about me then you have failed to understand the video and my stance. You say it's childish but it has no relation to children, your just looking to insulting me to make yourself feel better; THAT'S childish ;) 3. Jeez, for someone so sure we need government you seem hell bent on not getting into the important stuff. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's non-applicable you fool. "That you think coercive monopolies are bad does not = all government is bad." o rly? you think coercive monopolies are GOOD? Careful how you answer (it's a trap!) o.O 4. "I could give two shits about your business." You mean you COULDN'T ;). Jeez you're pissy. your whole paragraph is a non-sequiter. Well, technically everything you've said to this point has been as you have yet o provide any logical argument for the state. 5. "What on earth do the bank bailouts have to do with anything? Again, it was government helping business, and you seem to be blaming the victim." Wow... just wow. You have the economical understanding of a gopher. If a business CAN'T sustain itself in the market on it's own then how can throwing money at it solve the problem? (hint: IT CAN'T!) "You spend all your time trying to kill it, but expect it to change your diapers every time you shit yourself." Oh, you know me? You know how I spend my time? You have no understanding of anarchism yet you think you have me all figured out. You'd be cute if you weren't so foolish. a little trivia about myself. -I've never used state courts to solve my problems -I've never called the police to solve my problems -If I wasn't being forced under threat of death and imprisonment to buy government services, you can bet your ass I wouldn't be. -I've never ran a trillion dollar debt AND I've never taken a loan I can't pay off. Again, you are perfectly wrong on all accounts. next time, instead of re-asserting what you've already said put forth the effort to logically justify government and your posts wont suck quite as hard ;D Side: We DON'T
lol, either you're a fool or a liar for making such a statement. My statement was referring to you being one of those people who are against government yet have no idea that people have always had a government of one sort or another. The debate is "why do we need government" and all of your replies only mention specifics of this government that you happen to dislike without even broaching the question of government in general... which is what the debate is about. 1. It is human nature. We are a social creature. Back before things like language cavemen still ran around in clans and had rules similar to what eventually became government. Your first link says nothing of this. Even if all government magically disappeared tomorrow, people would make their own mini "governments" because that is human nature. Which is what I said. As for your second link, I'm not sure what the point is. I completely agree that there was never an American "golden-age" in fact, I think the American government has consistently improved overall over time. I have no idea how you think that link backs up your own argument at all. 2. I'm getting the sinking suspicion you are not looking at your own links. I was replying to the links you provided. I gave a list of things government is needed for, the first posted argument as you pointed out. You proceeded to supply links, I looked at the links, and responded in kind. The youtube video you linked is simply a rehash of the inflation gripe. Since you provided the link, I assumed that was your stance. However, as stated, that you do or do not agree with the government printing more money has 0 bearing on the fact that people still need government. 3. This is a logical fallacy. I can say that coercive monopolies are bad, and that people need government. They are not mutually exclusive. 4. Both are common sayings, "couldn't give two shits" or "could give two shits." They both work fine. And yes I have given a logical argument several times. People need government for the things I mentioned in my first argument, and we need government because it is in our nature. More, I've consistently torn down each of your links, logically, and you have yet to answer the question of how humans could survive without government. 5. Fine, I'm not pro big bank. Big banks aren't government. It has nothing at all to do with "Why Do We Need Government." Again, just because you do not like a specific thing the government does does not mean we don't need government. Anarchy is a silly idea. 1. it's impossible as I've stated since people would just form their own mini governments anyway, and 2. It would suck. If someone bigger and stronger decided they wanted what you have, they could just take it. We need government. End of story. If you want to pretend you're the loan ranger fine, but don't try to drag me into it. Side: We DON'T
I know exactly what you meant, what made you think I didn't? You're not the first statist I've debated, and you wont be the last. I made the debate and you're going to tell me what to talk about in it? LOL! If you want reasons for why i disagree with government on a universal level, just ask ;) 1. It IS human nature, but not for long. You clearly didn't read much from the link, but I don't blame you, it's a lot of information. There used to be a great 10 min video summarizing the whole site but since it's not up anymore, without going into too much detail, psycho-history makes the claim that the dominant form of government is directly related to the inter subjective psychology of a given nation. People have been getting less and less tyrannical over time and eventually will stop trying to force their personal preferences on others. you're conflating the idea of free interaction with forces interaction. people will clot together in social groups with or without being forced to by a central government. The chaos created by a collapsed state does not justify the state. That's like saying the mother who poisons her child then gives her a bit of medicine for it is necessary because without her the child wouldn't get medicine. Go 2/3rds down the article to the part about Pennsylvania. 2. I'm getting the sinking suspicion you need me to articulate my points in a less "between the lines" fashion. People do NOT need government just because government has a monopoly on currency. There are several cases of non-state currency:http://www.libertydollar.org/ I disagree with government not because it prints money, but because it "buys" money from a central bank at interest and passes the debt onto us. Basically, it handles the money it makes poorly and covers this fact up by violently forcing itself onto everyone else while punishing those who try to find a solution. 3. Yes, yes they are. Governments are defined by coercive monopolies. Governments force a monopoly on -police protection -currency -road building -food transportation -mail delivery -education -hospitals etc. etc. Actually, government is WORSE than regular monopolies. At least with regular monopolies you can opt out and just not buy their product, but with a state you are FORCED to buy what they sell, so even if you pay for private bodyguards you will STILL have to pay for the government service, whether you use it or not. (not to mention all the legal restrictions on bodyguards). So again, do you agree with coercive monopolies? o.O 4. i think you'll find "could" and "couldn't" mean the exact opposite of each other. ;) "People need government for the things I mentioned in my first argument, and we need government because it is in our nature." So, regardless of if government is logically stable or even necessary, we should submit because it's "in our nature" according to you. really? even if this is true and will always be true, would it not be better to "fight" our nature in such a case? As far as I'm concerned if pro-statist arguments are flawed it doesn't matter how long we've had/will have government. You want to know how humans can survive without government? Fine, it's called supply and demand. People want things and people will trade things to get those things. Also, people fill find more efficient ways to make and trade things. that's it. 5. Tell that to the central bank. Besides, government has a monopoly on the production of currency. banks are every bit a part of government as police. "1. it's impossible as I've stated since people would just form their own mini governments anyway," Government exists now because people think life is better with government. It's not. just because people want it doesn't mean it's good for them. "and 2. It would suck. If someone bigger and stronger decided they wanted what you have, they could just take it." Do you mean another government could take it, or your neighbor could come over and take your stuff? "If you want to pretend you're the loan ranger fine, but don't try to drag me into it." LOL 1. I'm not forcing you to debate me. YOU came to ME and you can leave anytime you want. 2. I'm hardly the only anarchist and I don't claim such XD Side: We DON'T
Most people in a society require some form of authority to settle disputes, provide facts, and develop infrastructure. Government could be said to be the end result of the majority's need to "pass the buck" rather than take personal initiative. Without a government, the majority would feel insecure, and revert back to tribes. Side: A majority cannot function independantly
2
points
1
point
1
point
The purpose of a government is to provide for the safety and protection of the citizens. It protects the nation from foreign and domestic enemies and violence, provides services like post office, fire protection, state and local police, armed forces, and regulates things like interstate commerce and trade with other nations. A government also has the obligation to protect the rights of the citizens, though not all governments do that. A national government must protect the rights of citizens and of states' rights. The government's functions are to provide social order, security, public services, and economic systems for the citizens. Side: We DON'T
So... we need governments to protect us from other governments? Interesting. Wrong, but not stupid wrong (like all the other posts so far =/). In fact if there is no government to take over it is nearly impossible for another state to take over the area even if the people of this area are not by design anarchists. Hell, it took 484 YEARS for Britain to finally conquer anarchic Ireland. Side: We DON'T
The inability of large population groups to spontaneoussly mass organize efforts on the scale necessary to sustain civilization. Any time you want to undertake an effort of a certain scope (and that scope isn't very large) you need someone to be in charge of running it. a.k.a.... governing. Or to put it another way... because we don't want to be a species of freaking hunter-gatherers or very small fortified villages. That a good enough reason? Side: A majority cannot function independantly
Right, like how cells are incapable of spontaneous mass organization on the scale necessary to sustain animals without a central government..... oh wait, they do that all the time =p "you need someone to be in charge of running it. a.k.a.... governing." you do realize that you can have agreements without tyranny, right? it isn't "all or nothing" in this case. XD "Or to put it another way... because we don't want to be a species of freaking hunter-gatherers or very small fortified villages." People tend to want large civilizations, therefore they need to be forced to live in large civilizations? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah If people want to live in big cities then they will regardless of if they're being forced or not. Does you boss have to force you to take your check? ;) "That a good enough reason?" I've yet to see a reason let alone a "good" one. =/ Side: A majority cannot function independantly
Government allows us to overcome the sub-optimal Nash equilibria at which we would inevitably become stuck if we naively pursued our respective self-interests. The Investment Game
Side: Nash Equilibria
You don't get it? In the video I would have invested, but only if I knew other people would invest also. If I didn't think other people would cooperate, then I wouldn't invest because I wouldn't want to waste my money. "What if not everybody agrees that it's a good investment" In this particular example, we have something that is obviously a good investment. If they have no good reason for resisting the investment, and their refusal to invest is likely to mean the entire effort will collapse, then, yes, they should clearly be forced to invest. "or if some people would rather invest in other things?" That's going beyond this particular thought experiment. In this example, we have only one thing to invest in. If people don't invest, everybody gets nothing. Side: We DON'T
"You don't get it? In the video I would have invested, but only if I knew other people would invest also. If I didn't think other people would cooperate, then I wouldn't invest because I wouldn't want to waste my money." Nothing you just wrote requires government. If people are not investing in it there's probably a damn good reason for it. There's no need for governments to force people to invest If it's a good idea, people will invest anyway. Besides, just because people invest in a product does NOT make it a grantee success, there's MUCH more to investing than that. "In this particular example, we have something that is obviously a good investment. If they have no good reason for resisting the investment, and their refusal to invest is likely to mean the entire effort will collapse, then, yes, they should clearly be forced to invest." WTF!!? If it's a good idea, people will invest because there's money in it for them, but even if it's a good idea and they still don't want to invest, FINE! It's THEIR money, NOT yours, NOT the states, they can be as stupid with it as they want, If it REALLY is a good idea it will survive with much less than 90% of the population surviving in it, why should you care how they use THEIR money? "That's going beyond this particular thought experiment. In this example, we have only one thing to invest in. If people don't invest, everybody gets nothing." Sure, but that's NOT how the world actually works. Perhaps if there was only ONE company in the country that (for some reason) would fail if it only got 89% of the population to invest their life savings of $10 in, your argument would make a little more sense (not much more, mind you), but since it's not it is just stupid to ignore that there are many good ideas to invest in and no logical reason for forcing people to invest in any particular thing, or anything for that matter. Side: We DON'T
"If people are not investing in it there's probably a damn good reason for it." Yes, and that reason is sub-optimal Nash equilibria. In other words, they are pursuing their rational self-interest, but their interests run contrary to the interests of the group. "If it's a good idea, people will invest because there's money in it for them" As the video demonstrates, that's not always true. "they can be as stupid with it as they want" Why should we let people do stupid things when their stupidity will make us all worse off? I think we should take their money, do what everybody knows needs to be done, then give them their money back along with their share profits after we succeed. They'll thank us in the end. And if they don't, then fuck 'em, the well being of society should not be impeded by some whiny child. "that's NOT how the world actually works." The point of a thought experiment is to establish a scenario where some set of ideas hold true. Then you work from there. Will you at least acknowledge that in this hypothetical scenario, some form of coercion would be a good idea? Side: We DON'T
"Yes, and that reason is sub-optimal Nash equilibria. In other words, they are pursuing their rational self-interest, but their interests run contrary to the interests of the group." I don't think you get it. Why do you automatically assume self-interest is always contrary to group interest? If a product cannot survive without people being coercively forced to pay for it then exactly how is that product beneficial to group interest? The group doesn't want to buy this product, so they wont invest in it for it to grow.... how is forcing them to buy this product good for them if they wont buy it? Are you going to force them to buy it to? "As the video demonstrates, that's not always true." NO COMPANY HAS EVER FAILED BECAUSE IT ONLY GOT 89% OF THE POPULATION TO INVEST IN IT. I felt the need to all-cap that because you seem to be unable of understanding that the video is far to simplistic to be functional. It's a bad argument. If a company even got 1% of the U.S, population to invest in it, it would become a multi-million dollar company OVER-NIGHT. 90%? Are you kidding me? A product that REQUIRES 90% of the population to invest in right off the bat it is NOT sustainable. Even corporate giants had to start small. Sure, the video uses much less people but if the video ONLY works in its own little hypothetical terms then it is NOT a true representation of the market and thus cannot serve as a valid argument for the state. I'm sure you can grasp this concept. "Why should we let people do stupid things when their stupidity will make us all worse off? I think we should take their money, do what everybody knows needs to be done, then give them their money back along with their share profits after we succeed. They'll thank us in the end. And if they don't, then fuck 'em, the well being of society should not be impeded by some whiny child."
There's more to economical success than buying stocks you fool. Weather you invest or not you MUST consume (or go be a hermit, in which case this person doesn't affect you at all). People who don't invest will be the ones who buy the products that everyone else in investing in. If they are not willing to buy the product then this product should NOT be invested in for the simple reason that it cannot sustain itself in the market. As I've said before a product that can only survive in the market through coercively forcing people invest then it serves NO purpose to society as people are clearly not willing to buy the product. You need to understand that the success of a product is NOT based on the amount of people who invest in it, but in the amount of people who BUY it. You could have 100% of people investing (instead of just 90%) and it wont mean jack shit unless people buy it. If they wont buy it, then it's a bad idea to invest in this product. If they will buy it then you don't need to force people to invest in it because they will on their own (there's money in it). It's a self-correcting system. "The point of a thought experiment is to establish a scenario where some set of ideas hold true. Then you work from there. Will you at least acknowledge that in this hypothetical scenario, some form of coercion would be a good idea?" NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! Like I've said before, 1.If you NEED to FORCE people to invest in the product it's because it can't survive on its own. 2.If it can't survive on it's own, it's because people are not buying it. 3. If people aren't buying it it's because they don't want it 4. If people DON'T want it then IT'S A BAD IDEA TO INVEST IN IT! You can't force a stable economy just as you can't force a stable "circle of life" (Lion king reference) . If it's not natural, it can't be sustained. If it can be sustained then it will happen NATURALLY. Side: We DON'T
"Why do you automatically assume self-interest is always contrary to group interest?" Not always, only sometimes. The video provides an example of one of those times. "Are you going to force them to buy it to?" There is no product in this example. The money magically multiplies when it gets above 90%. "the video is far to simplistic to be functional" Yes, I understand that. But if you aren't even willing to admit that coercion would be a good idea in this hypothetical scenario, then I must conclude you are not capable of thinking rationally, and talking to you is a waste of time. "3. If people aren't buying it it's because they don't want it" This is the flaw in your logic. There are some situations where people will rationally choose to take an action that leads to bad results. These situations are called sub-optimal Nash Equilibria. Coercion is a way to break through them. Government provides us with a way to coerce people in a restrained, responsible manner. Side: We DON'T
"Not always, only sometimes. The video provides an example of one of those times." And as I've said, the video doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Find a real life example, then come talk to me. Any fool can make up a scenario that can back up their claim; though, yours failed to do so anyway. "There is no product in this example. The money magically multiplies when it gets above 90%." Kinda like in real life, right? (sarcasm) Look, if this video doesn't relate to real life (as you've just admitted) then it is NOT an argument for government. That would be like me saying I need a motorcycle because I saw a video of a guy drawing a motorcycle. "Yes, I understand that. But if you aren't even willing to admit that coercion would be a good idea in this hypothetical scenario, then I must conclude you are not capable of thinking rationally, and talking to you is a waste of time." Ok, 1. I'm not forcing you to be here. Leave anytime you want. 2. I've already given you my rational for why coercion wouldn't help even in the scenario you gave and YOU have yet to debunk it. Put up or shut up. 3. Even if I agreed that coercion would work in your example it is still a FLAWED representation. Your argument is so stupid it's wrong even when it's right(ish). But it's even wrong when it comes to its OWN terms. There's no denying it. You. Are. Wrong. "This is the flaw in your logic. There are some situations where people will rationally choose to take an action that leads to bad results. These situations are called sub-optimal Nash Equilibria. Coercion is a way to break through them. Government provides us with a way to coerce people in a restrained, responsible manner." Again with this "I know better than everyone else" bullshit. Well, prove it. Prove you (government) know better than EVERYONE about how EVERYONE should spend their money. If you DON'T know better than everyone then you have no argument (let alone no right) to force people under threat of death to invest in what YOU think THEY should invest in. And if you force them anyway, you will see just how fast an economy can collapse. But even if you DID know better than everyone and you did prove it, guess what? YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO FORCE ANYONE TO GIVE YOU MONEY. Everyday people go out of their way to find people more knowledgeable then they are about the stock market so they know what to invest in. If you (or the government) REALLY knew what was the best way for people to invest their money and everyone who trusted you came out 10x richer PEOPLE WOULD LINE UP FOR MILES just to get the chance for you to tell them what to invest in. And why is that? Well you see, people don't go into in investing because they want to LOSE money. Perhaps some do, but it's such a small minority. They lose their money and life goes on. No market has ever failed because too many people have purposely invested in failing products. People that desperate to lose their money will burn it or trash it. If people acting in such anti-social ways was as big of a problem as you seem to think it is then SOCIETIES WOULDN'T EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE. A species that can't sustain an economy on it's own >>DOESN'T<< I repeat; a species that CAN'T sustain an economy NATURALLY does NOT DO SO. How the could government even hold itself together if people are incapable of sustaining themselves in a group? You need to understand that the government is made of nothing but people. All the faults of man kind MUST also be the faults of the government and in most cases the people who join the government are MORE corrupt than everyone else. Even you must see that. Out of all the arguments I've ever heard defending the state, yours is by far the WORST. You try to use an impossible scenario as proof we need government but even in the impossible scenario government would ONLY make things worse and you completely failed thus far to show otherwise. Hell, even the government knows forcing people to invest in what you tell them to is stupid; THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T DO IT! Or did you not realize that part? Unless you have something else to bring to the table other than this stupid "Nash equilibria" garbage, you have lost. Side: We DON'T
"Find a real life example, then come talk to me." An example of self interest going against the interest of the whole? Are you kidding me? Examples abound. Arms races I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons, but it would be even worse if they have nuclear weapons and we don't. Therefore we build nuclear weapons -- somethng we don't want -- to avoid an even worse scenario. If there was some kind of global authority that could compel all countries to go without nuclear weapons, we could avoid the problem. Business I start a company that is basically a pyramid scheme. When things go bad, I take the money and run. The rest of the economy tanks, but as long I'm left with more power than anybody else when the dust settles, then I'm willing to accept that. Government regulation can prevent this situation.
Chicken Two guys drive toward each other. The first one to swerve is the chicken. Both guys end up crashing into each other because they hope the other guy will swerve. Government could ban this destructive game.
Open source software If I freely share my code, other people could improve it, and the resulting programs would be of higher quality. But I keep my code to myself because otherwise people would be able to use my software without paying me. If a government could guarantee I got a paycheck, I would be willing to open up.
Global warming... I could go on and on... "if this video doesn't relate to real life" It does relate to real life. The point of a thought experiment is to remove the complexity so we can analyze one aspect of a situation in isolation. The rest of your argument makes about as much sense as a ten year old throwing a tantrum. I strongly suggest you chill the fuck out. Side: We DON'T
Now we're talking. ;) Arms races. Ok, so the first thing you say is your preference. This is important to note because you are basically saying that the whole world should conform to what YOU want. That's not how the world will ever work and there are much better alternatives to solving your problems than forcing an entire species to conform to you. Now about nuclear weapons. They wouldn't exist in the first place without governments. you're basically saying that we need government because government screws up so badly that only government can solve itself. Countries with nukes don't get invaded. You will never see from now until the end of government a time where a government with nukes will willingly give them all up. Ever. C'mon man at least try =/ Business Right, that's why there are no pyramid schemes now... right? If you would just look at the whole picture even for a moment you would see why most of the things you say don't fit with what really happens. Tell me exactly how government stops this kind of corporate corruption. Chicken I would have figured you of all people to want government to put people stupid enough to play this game down so they can't spread their genes around XD People stupid enough to get themselves killed will one way or another wind up dead. Why would you even want to hold back evolution by forcing these people to stay alive when they clearly don't want to? Open source software So? I don't care about your preferences Jess. The internet is working fine the way it is. It's almost as though competition is enough to get people to improve on their own ideas out of fear of not being sustainable in the market XD I don't know if you've noticed, but video-games and computers are some the THE most (if not THE most) quickly growing industries of our age. Would removing competition really improve on this? Of course not. Logically, when you remove a persons reason to improve on their product, they stop improving their product. And 1+1=2. "It does relate to real life. The point of a thought experiment is to remove the complexity so we can analyze one aspect of a situation in isolation." How many times do I have to explain to you that the video FAILS to represent what happens in the market? I've debunked it and debunked your defense of it. If you can't provide an actual counter-argument then just drop it and find a better argument. "The rest of your argument makes about as much sense as a ten year old throwing a tantrum. I strongly suggest you chill the fuck out." And your facial features are distorted. See, I can make assertions too. Prove what I say doesn't make sense. I've given you every opportunity to provide a counter-argument, if you refuse to do so I can only assume it's because you can't. I strongly suggest you smarten the fuck up ;) Side: We DON'T
"your preference" Avoiding arms races increases everybody's well-being. Increasing their well-being is everybody's preference. "the whole world should conform to what YOU want" No, I believe in Democracy. The world should conform to what the majority wants (with some exceptions). "there are much better alternatives to solving your problems" That's not always true. Sometimes coercion is the best answer. "[Nukes] wouldn't exist in the first place without governments." That's true, but the problem of arms races would remain. Instead of nukes, people would be building clubs, swords, slingshots, etc to use against one another. They will still be spending resources to defend themselves that they could be using to improve their own well-being. Remember, my point here is not to debate nuclear weapons, but to show that people often take actions which promote their own self-interest at the expense of the overall interest. I'm gonna ignore the other examples to keep this debate focused. "How many times do I have to explain to you that the video FAILS to represent what happens in the market?" It's not supposed to represent the market you dumb motherfucker. It's just a little demonstration showing that sometimes people's self-interest runs contrary to the interest of the group. It's like your math teacher shows you 2+2=4 and you say, "Bullshit! Real world equations are much more complicated!" and then you sit there looking smug while your teacher is like 'wtf?' Side: We DON'T
"Avoiding arms races increases everybody's well-being." Except for the government. You forgot how much government gains from winning an arms race ;) "No, I believe in Democracy. The world should conform to what the majority wants (with some exceptions)." How about instead, individuals conform to what they want individually. Then you wont have cases where 49% of a population don't get what they want. You say "with some exceptions", so, what are they? is democracy flawed? otherwise, why would there need to be exceptions? If democracy can sustain itself then there should be no problem that can't be solved democratically. So, what are these exceptions? "That's not always true. Sometimes coercion is the best answer." Ok, perhaps if you are being mugged then using force would solve your problem, but if your problem is you aren't making enough money then I promise you that forcing an artificial market will not in any way put some green backs in your pocket. "That's true, but the problem of arms races would remain. Instead of nukes, people would be building clubs, swords, slingshots, etc to use against one another. They will still be spending resources to defend themselves that they could be using to improve their own well-being." Protecting yourself ISN'T in your own well being? You sure? "It's not supposed to represent the market you dumb motherfucker. " So it's a video about people, money and how people exchange money... but it has nothing to do with the market? Facepalm "It's just a little demonstration showing that sometimes people's self-interest runs contrary to the interest of the group." If it doesn't translate to real world events then exactly how does it justify government? Why do we need government to solve hypothetical problems? Why should I give my money to government when the only justification for them is not related to how what happens in the market? I'm talking about real world problems that relate 100% to how the economy works and when you only look at what's actually there you see that government is nothing more than the most corrupt and violent company to ever emerge. Sure, sometimes people make bad financial choices. This is only a problem to YOU though when you are forcefully bound to these people via welfare, taxes etc. Without those, stupid people would have no impact on your money. Smart people will make successful companies, you will invest, everybody wins. You don't NEED money from people too stupid to understand the stock market in order to be wealthy. Weather they invest or not they will have to be consumers and if the product/service made from the company you invested in is a good product/service then they will consume it. Problem solved. "It's like your math teacher shows you 2+2=4 and you say, "Bullshit! Real world equations are much more complicated!" and then you sit there looking smug while your teacher is like 'wtf?'" No. The problem with your analogy is you equate the relation between math and math with the relation between your video and what actually happens in real life. Mathematically, 2+2=4 Functionally, $2=$2=$4 Fine. Your video, 90% of a populations wealth is needed to sustain a company. Functionally, not even 1% is needed. You've proven nothing with this video outside of what the circumstances of the video set out to prove... which they proved by setting up the circumstances in such a way that it can prove nothing else. Do you see what I'm saying? Anyone can set up a hypothetical situation that proves their thesis in order to prove their thesis. You didn't even need the video to convince me that people make bad choices sometimes, I really don't see why you're using it. =/ Side: We DON'T
"How about instead, individuals conform to what they want individually. Then you wont have cases where 49% of a population don't get what they want." With anarchy, you get cases where 99% of a population doesn't get what they want. How are you going to stop the strongest fools from robbing everybody and wrecking any sort of economy? "You say "with some exceptions", so, what are they?" That's a separate, complicated topic. You want majority rule with minority rights. The details behind that are debatable; but as the saying goes, democracy should be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. "Ok, perhaps if you are being mugged then using force would solve your problem" Ok, so force is acceptable to protect yourself? What about protecting your family? What about your friends? Your country? "Protecting yourself ISN'T in your own well being?" The thing is, if people would cooperate, there would be no need to protect ourselves from each other. Every hour we use building defenses is an hour we don't use building roads, growing food, or doing other things that increase our well-being. If I can rely on the police to stop people from robbing me, then I don't need to waste time and money buying weapons and fortifying my house. "If it doesn't translate to real world events" It does translate to real world events. It's just a simplification. Why didn't the students take the best action? Because they couldn't trust each other. This is exactly the same reason people become locked in arms races. "Sure, sometimes people make bad financial choices. This is only a problem to YOU though when you are forcefully bound to these people via welfare, taxes etc." That's not true. Even if there was no government, we would still all be dependent on one another. Bad financial decisions would hurt the overall economy and hurt everyone's quality of life. "You don't NEED money from people too stupid to understand the stock market...people make bad choices sometimes" The thing is, the kids in the video weren't stupid. They were making the smart decision. Just like me fortifying my house would be the smart decision if I couldn't depend on the police to protect me. If there were no police, we would all make the rational decision to fortify our living areas and waste a ton of resources that could have gone toward more productive activities. Side: We DON'T
"With anarchy, you get cases where 99% of a population doesn't get what they want. How are you going to stop the strongest fools from robbing everybody and wrecking any sort of economy" Oh jeez, I never thought of that. I guess you`re right. Seriously though, how will thieves be stopped? Pretty much the same way they are now. You don`t need a government monopoly on police protection in order to have police. "Ok, so force is acceptable to protect yourself? What about protecting your family? What about your friends? Your country?" Protect whatever you want. You don`t need to give a few men a monopoly on protection to have protection. You think you`re the only one who wants protection? Just the fact that people WANT safety is enough for some people to set up companies designed just for that purpose. "The thing is, if people would cooperate, there would be no need to protect ourselves from each other. Every hour we use building defenses is an hour we don't use building roads, growing food, or doing other things that increase our well-being. If I can rely on the police to stop people from robbing me, then I don't need to waste time and money buying weapons and fortifying my house." Violent people are just a fact of life. With or without governments I would say it`s in everyone`s best interest to be able to defend themselves. I would very much like if everyone just got along, but as long as violent and corrupt people exist there will be a demand for some form of protection. And as I`ve said, you DON`T need to accept having a small group of people with a violent monopoly on protection in order to have protection. Hell, a monopoly is the WORST way of protecting yourself because they can charge monopoly rates wile doing the bare minimum to get by by coercively stopping all possible competition. "It does translate to real world events. It's just a simplification. Why didn't the students take the best action? Because they couldn't trust each other. This is exactly the same reason people become locked in arms races." Whoa, that`s quite the jump from a failed investment to a full blown arms race. It`s not a simplified example and it doesn't prove we need government. It fails to represent the real economy on so many levels that... hell I`ll just list them. 1. The model is based on this company being the only one of it`s kind (monopoly) 2. no company has ever failed because only 89% of the population has invested 3. No one invests 100% of their savings into one company. 4. forcing people to invest in the company would cause a full stop in the companies market as the product is unable to survive with out stolen funds thanks to a government 5. forcing people to invest will cause a full stop in all possible competition which will kill all innovation as there will be no reason to improve. 6. Forcing people to invest will keep the price of the product artificially high because there will be no competition placing pressure on the company to lower its prices. 7. If a company requires 90% of a populations money just to survive then it is by far the worst company to ever start up and would be a bad idea for ANYONE to invest in. 8. People will intentionally NOT buy the companies product or service so it will collapse and they will no longer need to be forced to invest in it. 9. If the company really is destined to be successful you wont have to force people to invest in it. 10. Contemporary people will NOT stand for a government that forces them to invest in companies they don`t want to. 11. A company that needs that much money just to get off the ground won`t make it far enough for any government to bother forcing people to invest in. 12. If it ISN`T just getting off the ground then it won`t need that much money. 13. A persons mistrust in a companies survivability in the market is unrelated to a persons mistrust of another persons guns. You don`t invest in a company you don`t think can survive. You buy your own gun to protect yourself from burglars. I`m going to stop there because you either get the point now or you don`t. The video doesn`t represent anything, NOT because it`s too simplified (it is) but because it changes the rules of the economy. "That's not true. Even if there was no government, we would still all be dependent on one another. Bad financial decisions would hurt the overall economy and hurt everyone's quality of life." You are a very, very greedy person. You don`t need to scoop up every cent from every idiot with a checkbook to be wealthy. If this was really as big of a problem as you seem to think it is we as a species would be incapable of coming together just to form markets. Besides, just because someone looses money doesn`t mean the money just drops off the planet. Typically the money will end up in the pockets of people smart enough to get it and if it doesn`t then THAT idiot will also loose the money and this cycle will go on until it lands in the hands of someone smart enough to do something productive with it. Problem solved, and it took ZERO coercion to do it. "The thing is, the kids in the video weren't stupid. They were making the smart decision." I agree 100%. It WAS the right decision. I wouldn't invest in a company that required 90% of the population to invest to survive. There's nothing wrong with that. "Just like me fortifying my house would be the smart decision if I couldn't depend on the police to protect me. If there were no police, we would all make the rational decision to fortify our living areas and waste a ton of resources that could have gone toward more productive activities." AS I've said, you don't need a government to have police. Side: We DON'T
"set up companies" How in the world are companies supposed to exist in an anarchy? What's going to stop them from violently destroying one another in order to create a monopoly? "small group of people with a violent monopoly" You keep saying "monopoly". It doesn't make sense to call a democratic government a monopoly. If leaders do a bad job, they get voted out. That doesn't happen with real monopolies. "If this was really as big of a problem as you seem to think it is we as a species would be incapable of coming together just to form markets." You can't have a market without some form of enforcement. And if you have enforcement you need some way to make sure it is applied justly. Government is the best way to achieve this. Side: We DON'T
"How in the world are companies supposed to exist in an anarchy? What's going to stop them from violently destroying one another in order to create a monopoly?" Companies will start up the same way they do now, but with less restrictions obviously. Companies aren't able to go to war the way governments are. In order for a government to sustain a state of war it requires a tax base. Companies don't have that, they only have customers. When people see a company getting violent, all they have to do is stop buying its products/services and viola. Hell, if the fear of free market companies evolving into mini-states is great enough then people will voluntarily set up companies specifically designed to go from company to company just to make sure there's no secret weaponry stashed away. "You keep saying "monopoly". It doesn't make sense to call a democratic government a monopoly. If leaders do a bad job, they get voted out. That doesn't happen with real monopolies." You could vote out the president 100 times, the government will still force you to pay for its services. Voting moves people around, but the structure remains the same. "You can't have a market without some form of enforcement. And if you have enforcement you need some way to make sure it is applied justly. Government is the best way to achieve this." I agree that enforcement is needed, but NOT that government is needed to do this. You don't even need violent enforcement to stop people from ripping each other off . E-bay keeps it's sellers from committing fraud through sellers ratings and as a result have a less than 1% fail rate. Less than 1%, using nothing but the threat of a lower credit score. ~EDIT~ I found a nifty article that goes into further detail about this. http://fringeelements.ning.com/profiles/ Side: We DON'T
"When people see a company getting violent, all they have to do is stop buying its products/services and viola" Voila, huh? Just like that? No. It's not that simple. For one thing, people can hide their violence. They can make bogus arguments to persuade people that what they're doing is justified. They can bribe people into going along with them. They can scare people into going along with them. I think you put way too much faith in the mental and ethical capacity of the common man. "Voting moves people around, but the structure remains the same." But the same people don't benefit from the structure, and that's the important thing. A monopoly behaves abusively because it is in the leader's personal interest to do so. If people can get voted out of power, those incentives disappear. Side: We DON'T
"Voila, huh? Just like that? No. It's not that simple. For one thing, people can hide their violence. They can make bogus arguments to persuade people that what they're doing is justified. They can bribe people into going along with them. They can scare people into going along with them. I think you put way too much faith in the mental and ethical capacity of the common man." And you, too little. You wouldn't want a company to form into a mini-state right? You think you're alone in this stance? The very emergence of anarchism (non De facto-anarchism) means that people have chosen to live free of the state and EVERY single one of them will want a way to ensure all possible violent warlords are dealt with asap. it's surprisingly hard to set up a government as opposed to just conquering a pre-existing one. This is why it took England over 480 YEARS to conquer Ireland and England had a massive tax base! It's just not a possibility for a company to raise itself to the rank of a state. "But the same people don't benefit from the structure, and that's the important thing. A monopoly behaves abusively because it is in the leader's personal interest to do so. If people can get voted out of power, those incentives disappear." And how often do U.S. presidents get voted out? And out of those people how many of them wen to prison? Or even had to live in conditions equal to the middle class? Besides, you don't have to be at the top to enjoy the benefits of government monopolies. I'm not saying that government is bad because it has become corrupt (though, it clearly has), I'm saying government is BY DESIGN corrupt. Side: We DON'T
"EVERY single one of them will want a way to ensure all possible violent warlords are dealt with asap" Unless they themself, or their buddy, is the violent warlord. It is human nature to seek power. You can never completely eliminate conflict. And if you can't eliminate conflict then you can't eliminate power seeking. "It's just not a possibility for a company to raise itself to the rank of a state." Why not? Even in an anarchic utopia, individuals and groups would maneuver for advantage. They could use small advantages to discreetly gain more power. "And how often do U.S. presidents get voted out?" Once every four years. And don't forget impeachment. Obviously government is far from perfect, but it doesn't make sense to call it a coercive monopoly. Every aspect of it can be changed by the people. Side: We DON'T
"Unless they them self, or their buddy, is the violent warlord. It is human nature to seek power. You can never completely eliminate conflict. And if you can't eliminate conflict then you can't eliminate power seeking." Are trying to say a "buddy" can replace a tax base? Seriously? Yes, humans seek power; but this fact only further proves what a bad idea government is. A corrupt and violent person with any intelligence will be attracted to government because it promises such power. Even through voting it is impossible to stop the corruption of government for the simple fact that only people looking for power over others will even want to join government. With no government structure you will HAVE to start from scratch. Now, about starting from scratch. If I Went door to door asking people what they wanted to spend their money on and 10% said they wanted to buy a motorcycle, would you give me 10% of YOUR income so I can by public motorcycles for everyone to use? What if I said God wanted you to give me 10% of your income? If you had any intelligence you would tell me to leave immediately. It's just not possible to start up mega-states today like it used to be. "Why not? Even in an anarchic utopia, individuals and groups would maneuver for advantage. They could use small advantages to discreetly gain more power." If there is no government, you will never convince an anarchist to join your new government. Even if a small village got together and decided to expand by using their "advantages" to take over local towns, they will be trying to conquer a stateless society. Like I said, it took England 484 YEARS to conquer anarchic Ireland and they weren't even "anarchists". "Once every four years. And don't forget impeachment." I was talking about voting out through impeachment =P "Obviously government is far from perfect, but it doesn't make sense to call it a coercive monopoly. Every aspect of it can be changed by the people." ... Government is BY DEFINITION a set of coercive monopolies. 1. You HAVE to pay for government services 2. You are not allowed to compete with government services (there are a few loopholes, but not enough to actually compete with) The only changes and freedoms we have we have gotten because if we didn't government would've collapsed under the demand for them. You're given enough freedom that you will be the most productive, but not enough to see you don't need any "masters". Changes only happen when the public demand causes governments fear of loosing all their power to take priority over the samll loss in power that would come from whatever change the public wanted. Side: We DON'T
"Are trying to say a "buddy" can replace a tax base?" No. I was saying people seek power. They form groups to seek power. They then use that power to get more power. The end result is violent competition for scarce resources. That is, unless there is some other force to stop them. "Even if a small village got together and decided to expand by using their "advantages" to take over local towns, they will be trying to conquer a stateless society." Who cares if they take them over or not? Their advantages would give them bargaining power over the other village. They could use that bargaining power to extract resources unfairly, exacerbating the power difference. "Government is BY DEFINITION a set of coercive monopolies." No. Monopolies are run by an individual or small group for their own self-interest. Democratic governments are run collectively by the people. That's the difference you're refusing to see. If you wanted to stretch the definition you could call government a democratic monopoly. But a monopoly loses it's dangerous effects when it can be reshaped by the people. Side: We DON'T
"They then use that power to get more power. The end result is violent competition for scarce resources. That is, unless there is some other force to stop them." Look, for the last time, you DON'T need government to supply police protection. Without competing "police" agencies you're actually making the situation WORSE. You no longer have competing prices, the incentive to constantly improve on protection AND if one of the policing agencies goes on strike you wont have to worry about all hell breaking loose because there will be other agencies ready to pounce on a newly opened market. Run through this scenario with me. It's the antiquity of man. There is no government, but not by design. there are many people looking for power and many people who would give it to them for the promise of "pleasing God" or something along those lines. For hundreds of years violent competition ensues between these mini-states in order to gain control over more people and land. Eventually one state emerges and becomes more powerful than all the others combined, what's the first thing this new state is going to do? They're going to MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE ELSE TO COMPETE WITH THEM. The government we have today did not come from some collective agreement that we need protection from these mini-states. the government we have today IS these violent states all jumbled together. And they got this way by telling people whatever they wanted to hear. They would say "we offer protection from the violent mini-states" or "the greedy corporate class" or if that failed "DIVINE RIGHT!" And as I've already explained, you don't need government to protect you from violent people, you don't need it to protect you from the market and you sure as hell (lol) don't need government to "please God". "Who cares if they take them over or not? Their advantages would give them bargaining power over the other village. They could use that bargaining power to extract resources unfairly, exacerbating the power difference." You're starting to think like an anarchist. Give me a scenario of this type of thing happening. "No. Monopolies are run by an individual or small group for their own self-interest. Democratic governments are run collectively by the people. That's the difference you're refusing to see. If you wanted to stretch the definition you could call government a democratic monopoly. But a monopoly loses it's dangerous effects when it can be reshaped by the people." But people are stupid. Very stupid. Hilariously stupid. And I for one don't want my way of life to be forced on me by the preferences of others. As far as governments go, I would rather live in a democracy than a dictatorship; I agree to that much, but I don't want anyone else reshaping my life. In a dictatorship my life is shaped by one insane person; he becomes the people's enemy. In democracy my life is shaped by the collective insanity of society; neighbors become enemies. People spend all their time fighting each other, fighting for a bit of the money the whole country has pooled together through the force of the government. I say that THIS is the real reason for votes; NOT to give more control to the people, but to distract us and make us think the problem is each other instead of the government. http://www.youtube.com/ I never agreed to any government and I see no advantage to having one. Do you not agree that a person should be able to opt out of government services if they don't want them? Side: We DON'T
|
